DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA. CC.No.216 of 17.05.2010 Decided on 01.07.2010 Suresh Kumar son of Sh. Harbant Ram, resident of Near Istri Satsang Bhawan, Ward No.15, Maur Mandi, Tehsil Talwani Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. .......Complainant Versus 1. Sharma Eye Care & Hospital, 20, Jagdish Ashram Marg, Patiala, through Dr. Rajiv Sharma and Dr. Bela Sharma. 2. Makhan Singh son of Sh. Pritam Singh, resident of village Ghuman Kalan, Tehsil Talwandi Sabo, Distt. Bathinda. ......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant : Sh.S.K.Singla, proxy counsel for Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for the complainant. None for opposite parties. ORDER VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:- 1. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant was suffering from eye sight problem and he approached to opposite party No.1 on 17.11.2009. The opposite party No.2 took the complainant to opposite party No.1 posing himself as an agent of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 checked the eyes of the complainant and advised him to get operated his eyes. The complainant got himself admitted in the hospital on 17.11.2009 and the opposite party No.1 provided him requisite medicines and charged a sum of Rs.4,000/- from him. When he was discharged from the hospital on 18.11.2009, he was advised by the opposite party No.1 to took the medicines. The opposite party No.1 further advised the complainant to get admitted in the hospital on 20.11.2009 for operation of right eye. On the same day the operation was conducted by opposite party No.1 and thereafter the complainant was discharged from the hospital on 21.11.2009. The opposite party No.1 put some medicines in his eyes and charged a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from him. He noted that his eye sight did not improve. When the complainant visited the hospital on 08.12.2009 the opposite party No.1 advised him to get operated his left eye. On 09.12.2009 the opposite party No.1 operated the left eye of the complainant and discharged him from the hospital on 10.12.2009. The complainant paid Rs. 1500/- to the opposite party No.1. The complainant again visited the hospital of opposite party No.1 on 22.12.2009 and on 14.01.2010 the opposite party No.1 got conducted tests from Sharma Laser Centre which is inside the hospital of the opposite party No.1. The complainant alleged that after operation, eye sight of both the eyes did not improve. The opposite party No.1 has charged a lot amount from the complainant. Hence he has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite parties were served with a notice. The opposite party No.1 filed an application for the rejection of the complaint on territorial jurisdiction. None appear on behalf of opposite party No.2. 3. The complainant led the exparte evidence to support his pleadings. The counsel for the complainant Sh. Lalig Garg, argued on the main complaint as well as on the application. 4. Arguments heard and the record placed on file perused. 5. A perusal of documents placed on file revealed that the complainant is resident of Maur Mandi, Bathinda and the opposite parties from where he got operated his both eyes is situated at Patiala. The opposite party No.2 is agent of opposite party No.1. No proof is placed on file, moreover it has no concern with the facts of the case. According to the complainant, no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. Hence the Forum at Bathinda has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence this complaint is dismissed in liminie. The complainant is at liberty to file the fresh complaint in the Forum/Court of appropriate jurisdiction. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ' Pronounced (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) 01.07.2010 President (Dr. Phulinder Preet) Member (Amarjeet Paul) Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
